uw^    f 


SOol'lZ'NVriVd 


FEB    9  1^^/ 


TOLSTOY  S  INTEUPRKTATION 


OF    MONKY   AND  PROPERTY 


By 

Mni\nv  S.  STANOYIiVICH    ^'  ' 
nivertitu  of  Caii/omia) 


Reprinted  from   *'Liberty",  December,  1916. 


Liberty  PublUhlnft  Co. 
Oakland,  Cal. 


TOLSTOY'S  INTERPRETATION 

OF   MONEY   AND  PUOPERTV 


By 
MILIVOY  S.  STANOYEVICH,  M.L. 

(  Un%9er*Uy  qf  California) 


Reprinted  from   ^'Liberty",  December,  1916. 


Liberty  Publishing  Co. 
Oakland,  Cal. 


PRES£«V.«!lON 
COPV  ADDED 
ORIGKwALTOBE 


.1  v^ 


TOLSTOY'S  INTERPRETATION  OF  MONEY  AND 
PROPERTY 

A.  Interpretation  of  Money. 


Assuming  that  our  society  may  exist  without  positive 
laws  it  could  also  exist  without  money.  The  Russian 
reformer,  Leo  N.  Tolstoy,  is  consistent  with  his  doctrine 
of  social  reform  (1).  According  to  him  enacted  law  is 
violence,  private  property  is  evil,  and  subsequently  "money 
as  a  centre  around  which  economic  science  clusters"(2) 
cannot  be  anything  else,  but  a  medium  of  oppression  (3). 
Describing  the  economic  nature  and  offices  performed  by 
money,  he  dissents  widely  from  the  politico-economists  and 
disapproves  of  their  teachings  on  the  same  subject-matter. 

At  the  outset  of  the  seventeenth  chapter  of  his  notable 
work,  What  Shall  We  Do  Then,  Tolstoy  inquires.  What  is 
money?  And  further  on  he  proceeds:  "I  have  met  educated 
people  who  asserted  that  money  represents  the  labor  of  him 
who  possesses  it.  I  must  confess  that  formerly  I  in  some 
obscure  manner  shared  this  opinion.  But  I  had  to  go  to  the 
bottom  of  what  money  was,  and  so  to  find  this  out,  I  turned 
to  science.  Science  says  that  there  is  nothing  unjust  and 
prejudicial  about  money,  that  money  is  a  natural  condition 
of  social  life — necessary:  L  for  convenience  of  exchange; 
2.  for  the  establishment  of  measures  of  value;  3.  for  saving; 
and  4.  for  payments"(4). 

Are  these  theories  true?  According  to  the  teaching  of 
economics  they  are;  according  to  Tolstoy  they  are  not. 
Many  writers  even  those  of  the  earliest  time  argued  that 

]1  ]  "If  Tolstoy's  teaching  is  not  systematic,  two  facts  may  be  urged  in 
extenuation:  his  doctrines,  so  far  as  he  expounds  them,  are  consistent  in 
themselves"  —  says  T.  S.  JKnowlson  in  his  biographical  and  critical  study 
on  Leo  ToUioy,  ch.  VII,  d.  143.  [London,  1904]. 

(21  See  J.  W.  Harper,  Money  and  Social  Problem,  ch.  V,  sec.  I,  p.98. 

3  What  ShaU  We  Do  Then,  ch.  XIX,  p.  127.  [Wiener's  ed.  1904]. 

[A]Loc.cU.,  ch.  XVII,  p.  100. 


347 i 50 


money  is  a  medium  of  exchange  (5).  The  founders  of  classi- 
cal economics,  Smith  (6),  Ricardo  (7),  Mill  (8),  Carey  (9), 
socialist  reformers,  Lassalle  (10),  and  Marx  (11),  all  agree  in 
the  main  that  money  is  an  exchangeable  commodity  by 
means  of  which  people  measure  the  value  of  other  commo- 
dities. Professor  Fisher  shortly  and  precisely  defines  money 
as  What  is  generally  acceptable  in  exchange  for  goods  (12). 
More  acute  determination  of  the  nature  of  money  is  given  by 
Prof.  Kinley  in  his  elaborate  study  on  Money  (13).  According 
to  this  author  no  definition  of  medium  of  exchange  can  be 
framed  on  the  basis  of  the  material  of  which  it  is  made 
but  on  the  basis  of  its  services,  and  its  essential  services 

are  three  fold: 

» 

First,  money  is  sometimes  used  to  describe  all  media 
of  exchange — gold,  silver,  paper,  checks,  bank  drafts  or  the 
deposits  which  they  represent,  commercial  bills  of  exchange, 
and  even  corporarion  stocks.  These  things  all  effect  exchan- 
ges; in  a  way  they  all  relieve  the  difficulties  of  barter. 
But  this  definition,  however,  is  too  inclusive,  Prof.  Kinley 
contends.  It  is  inclusive  because  all  mentioned  articles  do 
not  attain  the  character  of  media  of  exchange  because  there 
is  a  demand  for  them  for  that  purpose  primarily.  The  me- 
dium of  exchange  includes  money  but  its  content  is  greater 
than  that  of  money.  All  money  can  be  a  medium  of  exchange 
but  all  medium  of  exchange  is  not  money  (14). 

Second,  at  the  other  extreme  is  a  set  of  definitions  which 
would  restrict  money  to  what  may  be  called  commodity 
money.  Those  who  hold  this  view  insist  that  money  is  an 
article  of  direct  utility  with  specific  value  based  on  its 
direct  services  for  consumption.  They  hold  that  it  must  have 
value  due  to  a  demand  for  other  than  a  monetary  system. 

[5]  Cf .  for  instance,  Plato,  Laws,  ch.  XI,  and  Aristotle's  Politics,  bk.  I, 
ch.  9;  Nicomachean  Etics,  by  Aristotle,  bk.  V,  ch.  5.  —  Roman  authors 
defined  money  as  a  "just  medium  and  measure  of  commutable  things" 
Moneta  est  justum  medium  et  m^nsura  rerum  commviahUium,  quoted  in 
H.  C.  Black,  Dictionary  of  Law,  p.  785.  [1891]. 

[6]  WeaUh  of  Nations,  bk.  II,  ch.  II. 

[7]  Principles  of  Political  Economy  and  Taxation,  ch.  XXI. 

[8]  Principles  of  Political  Economy,  bk.  Ill,  ch.  VII. 

[9]  Principles  of  Social  Science,  vol.  II,  ch.  XXX,  1. 

[10]  Die  Philosophic  Heracleitos  des  Dunkeln,  vol.  I,  p.  22.  [1845]. 

[11]  Capital,  English  ed.  part  I,  ch.  III. 

[12]  The  Purchasing  Power  of  Money,  ch.  II,  ces.  1.  [New  York,  1911]. 

[13]  D.  Kinley,  Money,  a  Study  of  the  Theory  of  the  Medium  of  Ex- 
change, ch.  V,  6.  [New  York,  1913]. 

[14]  Some  excellent  hints  as  to  the  money-commodity,  compare 
H.  White,  Money  andBanking,  bk.  I,  ch.  I.  [New  York,  1908]. 


3 

The  implication  is  that  in  the  absence  of  this  other  demand 
the  article  would  not  have  any  value  and  therefore  could 
not  properly  serve  as  a  measure  of  value.  This  view  of  the 
nature  of  money  is  definite  and  clear-cut,  but  it  is  not  cor- 
rect because  the  article  has  value  if  there  is  a  demand  for  it, 
whatever  the  reason  for  that  demand. 

Third,  between  these  two  extremes  fluctuates  the  view 
that  all  media  of  exchange  and  payment,  whose  acceptance 
the  law  requires  in  discharge  of  debts,  may  properly  be 
called  money.  This  definition  confines  to  standard  money, 
or  inconvertible  paper,  if  it  were  legal  tender.  Both  kinds 
of  money  circulate  without  reference  to  the  possibility 
of  recovering  their  value  from  the  payer  if  they  should  fail  to 
pass,  and  their  value  as  money  depends  entirely  on  the  fact 
that  they  are  generally  acceptable  in  exchange  (15). 

Taking  now  in  view  these  three  standpoints  of  the  nature 
of  money,  we  could  define  it  in  these  words :  Legal  tender, 
inconvertible  paper,  and  all  commodities  which  are  used  as 
general  circulating  and  paying  media,  are  properly  called 
money. 

This  is  one  of  the  most  typical  definitions  including  nearly 
all  others  supported  by  current  political  economy.  Tolstoy 
as  always  disagrees  with  the  teaching  of  economics  and 
he  simply  says  that  money  is  a  new  and  terrible  form 
of  slavery  (16).^  His  full  definition  is  as  folows:  Money  is  a 
conventional  token  which  gives  the  right,  or  more  correctly, 
the  possibility,  to  exploit  the  labor  of  other  people  (17).  To 
explain  this  inadequate  definition  of  money  more  approp- 
riately and  in  its  fuller  extent,  it  is  necessary  to  turn  our 
attention  to  the  functions  of  money  as  they  are  enunciated 
by  Leo  Tolstoy. 

One  of  many  other  functions  which  money  performes, 
according  to  Tolstoy,  is  the  representation  of  labor.  There 

[15)  Valuable  suRgestions  on  standard  money,  see  W.  A.  Scott,  Money 
and  Banking,  ch.  iTsec.  I.  —  J.  L.  Laughlin,  The  Principles  of  Money, 
ch.  III.  —  J.  B.  Clark,  The  Ultimate  Standard  of  Value,  in  Yale  Review, 
Nov.  1892,  vol.  1,  p.  258-74.  —  The  same  subject  is  well  treated  by 
C.  Manger  in  an  article  entitled  "Geld"  in  the  Handwoerterhuch  der 
Staatswisaenechaften,  bd.  IV.  (1900],  and  L.  Nasse,  "Das  Geld  und 
Muenzwesen"  in  Schoenberg,  Handbuch  der  Politiachen  Oekonomie, 
bd.  I.  (1896). 

[16]  WhatShaU  We  Do  Then,  ch.  XXI,  p.  164.  [Wiener's  ed.j 

[17]  Id.  Ibid.  ch.  XXII,  p.  161. 


exists  a  common  opinion  that  money  represents  wealth, 
but  money  is  the  product  of  labor,  and  so  money  represents 
labor  (18).*'  This  opinion,  says  Tolstoy  sneeringly,  is  as 
correct  as  that  other  opinion  that  every  political  organiza- 
tion is  the  result  of  a  pact  (contrat  social).  Yes,  money  re- 
presents labor  (19);  there  is  no  doubt  about  that,  but  whose, 
labor  of  the  owner  of  the  money,  or  of  the  other  people?  In 
that  rude  stage  of  society,  Tolstoy  goes  on,  when  people 
voluntarily  bartered  the  fruits  of  their  products,  or  exchan- 
ged them  through  the  medium  of  money,  substantially 
money  represented  their  individual  labor.  That  is  incontes- 
tably  true,  and  this  was  only  so  long  as  in  society  where  this 
exchange  took  place,  has  not  appeared  the  violence  of  one 
man  over  another  in  any  form:  war,  slavery,  of  defence  of 
one's  labor  against  others.  But  as  soon  as  any  violence  was 
exerted  in  society,  the  money  at  once  lost  for  the  owner  its 
significance  as  a  representative  of  labor,  and  assumed  the 
meaning  of  a  right  which  is  not  based  on  labor,  but  on 
violence  (20).  This  is  one  of  the  functions  of  the  medium 
of  exchange  in  the  pages  of  Tolstoy. 

The  second  function  of  money  is  the  representation  of  the 
standard  value.  ''Catallactics"  admits  this  function  of 
money.  Tolstoy  himself  should  recognize  it  in  an  ideal  state 
of  society,  in  a  society  where  extortion  has  not  made  its 
appearance  (21).  If  people  exchanged  directly  commodity 
for  commodity;  if  they  themselves  determined  the  standards 
of  values  by  sheep,  furs,  hides,  and  shells(22),  then  one  could 
speak  of  money  as  an  instrument  of  exchange,  as  an  ideal 
standard  of  value  in  an  ideal  state  of  society.  But  in  such 
a  society  there  would  be  no  money  as  such,  as  a  common 
standard  of  values,  as  it  has  not  existed  and  cannot  exist(23). 
The  standard  value  of  money  is  determined  by  law  and 
government,  and  these  institutions  are  based  chiefly  on 
deceit  (24),  or  represent  the  organized  force  (25).  What  in 
recent  time  receives  a  value  is  not  what  is  more  convenient 
for  exchange,  but  what  is  demanded  by  government.  If  gold 

18]  What  Shall  We  Do  Then,  ch.  XXI,  p.  158. 
19[  Op.  cU.y  p.  160. 
20]Loc.  ci<.  ch.  XXI,  p.  159. 
[21]  Id.  lb.  ch.  XIX,  p.  126. 
22]  Op.  cii.  ch.  XVIII,  p.  122. 
23]  Id.  ib.  ch.  XIX,  p.  126. 

24]  Patriotism  andGcvemment.  Complete  Works,  vol.  XXIII,  p.  538. 
[Wiener's  ed.  1904]. 

[25]  The  Slavery  of  Our  Times.  Comp.  Works,  vol.  XXIV,  p.  128. 


is  demanded  gold  will  be  a  common  denominator,  if 
knuckle-bones  are  demanded,  knuckle-bones  will  have 
value  (26).  If  this  were  not  so  why  has  the  issue  of  this 
medium  of  exchange  always  been  the  prerogative  of  the 
government?  In  such  a  state  of  society  in  which  we  live, 
the  standard  of  values  ceases  to  have  any  significance, 
because  the  standard  of  value  of  all  articles  depends  on  the 
arbitrary  will  of  the  oppressor  (27).  By  this  reason  we  could 
speak  only  on  arbitrary  and  conventional  value  of  money, 
not  of  its  intrinsic,  nor  of  its  standard  value. 

Passing  now  to  the  third  function  of  money,  enumerated 
by  Tolstoy,  we  see  that  he  attributes  to  it  a  new  contingent 
service  which  is  not  mentioned  as  such  in  any  political  eco- 
nomy. In  modern  civilised  society,  he  says,  all  the  govern- 
ments are  in  extreme  need  for  money,  and  always  in  insol- 
vable  debt  (28).  Wherefore  they  issue  monetary  tokens  in 
the  different  countries  (29).  These  tokens:  legal  tender, 
inconvertible  paper,  coin,  bills,  and  other  governmental 
fiats,  are  distributed  among  the  people,  in  order  that  later 
they  could  be  collected  as  direct,  indirect,  and  land  taxes(30). 
The  debts  of  the  present  monetary  state  grow  from  year  to 
year  in  a  terrifying  progression.  Even  so  grow  the 
budgets(Ji).  A  state  which  should  not  levy  taxes,  for  a  com- 
paratively short  time  would  go  to  bankruptcy.  The  taxes 
and  imposts  required  from  people  may  be  paid  in  form 
of  cattle,  corn,  furs,  skins,  and  other  natural  products,  but 
this  "natural  economy''  never  practices  in  a  civilised  state. 
Governments  force  people  to  pay  those  taxes  usually  in 
"hard"  or  "soft"  cash,  because  this  kind  of  money  best 
suits  the  purposes  of  rewarding  the  military  and  civil  offi- 
cials, of  maintaining  the  clergy,  the  courts,  the  construction 
of  prisons,  fortresses,  cannon  (32),  and  supporting  those  men 
who  aid  in  the  seizure  of  the  money  from  the  people  (33). 
So  we  have  the  third  function  of  money  as  the  third  method 

(261  What  ShaU  We  Do  Then,  ch.  XVIII,  p.  122. 

[271  Id.  Ibid.  ch.  XIX,  p.  127. 

(28)  Loc.  cit.  ch.  XVIII,  p.  121. 

[29]  Op.  cU.  ch.  XX,  p.  145. 

(301  Loc.  cU.  ch.  XX,  p.  145. 

1311  Id.  Ibid.  ch.  XVIII,  p.  121. 

[32]  The  Kingdom  ofOod  i8  Within  You,  «lir<Hi;  ffi  WT. 

[33]  The  Slavery  of  Our  Times,  ch.  X,  p.  41. 


of  enslavement  (34),  by  means  of  tribute  and  taxes  (35).  In 
modern  times,  since  the  discovery  of  America  and  the 
development  of  trade  and  the  influx  of  gold,  which  is 
accepted  as  the  universal  money  standard,  the  monetary 
tribute  becomes,  with  the  enforcement  of  the  political 
power,  the  chief  instrument  of  the  enslavement  of  men  (36), 
and  upon  it  all  the  economic  relation  of  men  are  based  (37). 

II 

Discussing  money,  Tolstoy  cannot  separate  the  eco- 
nomic question  from  the  political.  To  him  it  appears  in- 
evitable that  money  performes  a  social  service  equivalent  to 
the  instrument  of  extortion.  He  does  fiot  take  into  conside- 
ration those  inumerable  utilities  which  circulating  medium 
renders  to  the  community  and  particularly  to  the  commer- 
cial world,  facilitating  the  transfer  as  well  as  aggregation 
of  capital.  "  Chremmatistics"  teaches  us  that  money  is  the 
most  general  form  of  capital,  capital  in  the  fluid  state,  so 
that  it  can  be  immediately  turned  to  new  enterprises  and 
transfered  for  investment  to  distant  places.  On  the  other 
hand,  capital  in  the  form  of  money  is  the  most  convenient 
vehicle  of  production  and  distribution  of  wealth.  Tolstoy, 
as  a  medieval  canonist,  regards  capital  and  wealth  to  be 
shameful  and  criminal  things.  He  absolutely  repudiates 
the  theory  that  in  all  production  only  three  factors  take 
part :  land,  capital  and  labor.  His  disconcerting  controversy 
in  these  matters  contains  nothing  fundamentally  new  in 
political  economy,  but  it  is  an  odd  manner  in  which  he 
couches  the  notion  of  money  in  relation  to  production. 

It  seems  strange,  Tolstoy's  theory  runs,  that  economists 
do  not  recognize  the  natural  objects  in  production  of  wealth. 
The  power  of  the  sun,  water,  food,  air,  and  social  security, 
are  the  requisites  of  production  as  much  as  the  land  or  capi- 
tal. Education,  knowledge,  and  ability  to  speak  are  certain 

[34]  The  first  method  of  the  enslavement  of  men  is  by  means  of  per- 
sonal violence,  according  to  Tolstoy,  and  second  is  by  depriving  people 
of  their  land.  [Cf.  What  Shall  We  Do  Then,  ch.  XX,  p.  142-43]. 

[35]  What  Shall  We  Do  Then,  ch.  XX.  p.  144. 

[36]  Id.  Ibid.  ch.  XVIII,  p.  111. 

[37]  For  the  sound  discussion  on  function  of  money,  which  is  avowedly 
opposite  to  Tolstoy's  theory,  see  W.  S.  Jevons,  Money  and  the  Mechanism 
of  Exchange,  ch.  III.  —  J.  L.  Laughlin,  The  Principles  of  Money,  ch.  I. — 
F.  A.  Walker,  Money,  ch.  I.  [1883].  —  E.  B.  Bawerk,  Positive  Theorie 
des  Cajnials,  bch.  II,  abt.  II-III.  [1902].  —  C.  Jannet,  Capital,  ch.  II-III. 
For  a  different  and  soimder  interpretation  of  taxes  and  taxation,  see 
the  excellent  book,  Introduction  to  Public  Finance,  by  Prof.  C.C.Plehn. 
N.  York,  1896. 


agents  of  production.  I  could  fill  a  whole  volume,  says  Tol- 
stoy, with  such  omitted  factors,  and  put  them  at  the  basis 
of  science  (38)  .''The  division  into  three  factors  of  production 
is  not  proper  to  men.  It  is  improper,  arbitrary,  and  senseless. 
It  does  not  lie  in  the  essence  of  things  themselves. 

By  its  division  of  the  factors  of  production,  proceeds  our 
author,  science  affirms  that  the  natural  condition  of  the  la- 
borer is  that  unnatural  condition  in  which  he  is;  just  as  in 
the  ancient  world  they  affirmed,  in  dividing  people  into 
citizens  and  slaves,  that  the  unnatural  condition  of  the 
slaves  is  a  natural  property  of  man.  This  division,  which  is 
accepted  by  science  only  in  order  to  justify  the  existing 
evil,  which  is  placed  by  it  at  the  basis  of  all  its  investigations, 
has  had  this  effect,  that  science  tries  in  vain  to  give  ex- 
planations of  existing  phenomena,  and  denying  the  clearest 
and  simplest  answers  to  questions  that  present  them, 
it  gives  answers  which  are  devoid  of  content.  The  question 
of  economic  science  is  as  follows :  What  is  the  cause  of  this, 
that  some  men,  who  have  land  and  capital,  are  able  to  en- 
slave those  who  have  not  land,  and  no  capital?  The  answ^ 
which  presents  itself  to  common  sense  is  this,  that  it  is  due 
to  the  money,  which  has  the  power  of  enslaving  people. 
This  is  not  due  to  the  property  of  money,  but  because 
some  have  land  and  capital,  and  others  have  not.  We 
ask,  why  people  who  have  land  and  capital  enslave 
those  who  have  none,  and  we  are  told:  because  they  have 
land  and  capital.  But  that  is  precisely  what  we  want  to 
know.  The  privation  of  the  land  and  of  the  tools  of  labor  is 
that  very  enslavement.  The  answer  is  like  this:  Facit 
dormire  g^uia  habet  vtrtulem  dormitiva.  To  simple  people  it  is 
indubitable  that  the  nearest  cause  of  the  enslavement  of  one 
class  of  men  by  another  is  money  (39).  They  know  that  it  is 
possible  to  cause  more  trouble  with  a  rouble  than  with  a 
club;  it  is  only  political  economy  that  does  not  want  to 
know  it. (40). 

These  theories  on  money  respecting  production  do  not 
appear  of  such  nature  that  they  could  be  applied  in  the 
other  countries  besides  Russia.  The  Russian  enlightened 
feudalism  of  the  nineteenth  century  gave  Tolstoy  excellent 
material  and  a  good  reason  to  attack  it  with  all  his  strength, 


What  ShaU  We  Do  Then,  ch.  XVII,  p.  102. 
Loc.  cU.  ch.  XVIL  p.  109. 
Id.  Ibid.  ch.  XVIII,  p.  124. 


8 

and  he  was  right.  But  his  assault  on  political  economy  for 
its  ''omission"  to  treat  the  natural  objects  in  production 
of  wealth,  are  not  justifiable,  and  could  not  be  admitted. 
In  the  first  place,  any  better  political  economy  does  not 
consider  these  objects  at  length,  because  nobody  lays  claims 
on  them,  as  Tolstoy  himself  avowed  this  fact  (41).  The  gifts 
of  nature  cannot  be  appropriated  by  any  one.  They  are  in- 
exhaustible and  unlimited  as  compared  with  the  wants 
of  men.  Therefore  they  never  have  a  direct  value  to  be  taken 
as  factors  of  productions  (42). 

In  modern  industrial  society  the  essential  factors  of  pro- 
duction, among  the  others,  are  money  and  wealth.  Wealth  is 
usually  regarded  as  the  object  of  consumption,  and  as  an 
agent  of  production  (43).  The  idea  of  wealth,  however,  is 
often  confounded  with  the  idea  of  money.  John  S.  Mill  has 
justly  remarked  that  most  people  regard  money  as  wealth, 
because  by  that  means  they  provide  almost  all  their  neces- 
sities. In  the  same  sense  is  the  assertion  of  the  French  eco- 
nomist Charles  Gide,  when  he  noted  that  in  all  times  and  in 
all  places  except  among  savages,  money  has  occupied  an 
exceptional  place  in  the  thoughts  and  desires  of  men.  People 
regard  it,  if  not  as  the  only  wealth,  at  any  rate,  as  by  far 
the  most  important  form  of  wealth.  They  appear  to  measure 
the  value  of  all  other  wealth  by  the  quantity  of  money  that 
can  be  obtained  in  exchange  for  it.  Eire  riche,  c'est  avoir 
soil  de  V argent,  soil  les  moyens  de  s'en  procurer  (44). 

Tolstoy  of  course  has  no  clear  distinction  either  of  wealth, 
or  of  money.  He  also  confuses  these  notions  as  many  authors 
before  and  after  him.  To  define  wealth  exactly  is  verily  a 
difficult  task;  and  to  dwell  upon  it  impartially  is  perhaps 
still  more  difficult.  There  are  two  theories  in  ''Plutology'' 
regarding  the  definition  of  wealth:  first,  that  wealth  is 
all  exchangeable  and  valuable  commodities  and  second, 
that  it  is  power.  Representatives  of  the  first  theory  are 
Henry  Fawcet  and  John  S.  Mill,  of  the  second,  Hobbes 
and  Carey.  Tolstoy  is  nearer  to  those  theorizers  who  teach 
that  wealth  is  power,  than  to  those  who  define  it  as  commo- 
dity. Yet,  we  should  err  gravely  if  we  assumed  that  between 
Tolstoy's  interpretation  of  wealth  and  that  of    other  eco- 

[41]  Op.  dt  ch.  XVIII,  p.  117. 

[42]  Cf.  W.  RoBcher,  System  der  VolkswiHschaft,  bd.  I,  kap.  I,  31. [1906]. 
J.  S.  Mill,  Political  Economy ,  bk.  I,  ch.  I,  sec.  1. 

[43]  Cf.  A.  IVIarschal,  Principles  of  Economics,  bk.  IV,  ch.  VII,  sec.  1. 
p.  300.  [London,  1898]. 

[44]  Cours  d'Economie  Politique,  p.  310.  [Paris,  1911]. 


9 

nomists  exists  any  conformity.  For  instance  Carey  defines 
wealth  as  the  power  to  command  nature.  Tolstoy  defines 
it  as  the  power  to  command  other  people  who  have  neither 
wealth  nor  'Hhe  signs"  of  wealth.  "Only  in  the  Panta- 
teuch,  wealth  is  the  highest  good  and  reward"  (45). 
In  everyday  life  wealth  is  evil,  deception  and  cause  of  en- 
slavement. To  be  honest  and  at  the  same  time  to 
work  for  Mammon,  is  something  quite  impossible  (46). 
This  ethical  principle  may  be  true.  But  our  theorist  forgets 
that  questions  of  what  people  ought  to  do,  and  questions  of 
what  it  will  profit  men  and  nations  to  do,  belong  to  different 
categories  of  sciences.  He  forgets  that  ethical  ideas  should 
not  be  read  into  the  conceptions  of  wealth  and  money  when 
they  are  employed  in  their  everyday  sense.  Prof.  S.  Chap- 
man (47)  justly  says  "If  our  aim  is  to  indicate  what  people 
ought  to  want  instead  of  what  they  do  want,  we  had  better 
speak  of  ethical  wealth  and  ethical  value". 

Tolstoy  was  very  near  to  those  reform  writers  who  taught 
that  political  economy  must  be  regarded  as  a  part  of  moral 
philosophy.  But  he  was  not  the  first  social  reformer  who  has 
introduced  the  moral  elements  into  the  study  of  economic 
phenomena.  As  it  is  known  Aristotle's  interpretations  of 
money  are  written  in  the  Nichomachean  Ethics.  The  politi- 
cal economy  of  Plato  and  Xenophon  rests  on  moral  bases(48). 
Medieval  scholastics  and  theologians  raised  many  problems 
which  were  in  connection  with  the  searching  inquire  as  to 
what  constitutes  a  jvst  pricey  and  this  inquiry  belonged  to 
the  ethics  of  political  economy.  Adam  Smith  and  John  S. 
Mill  adopted  the  double  role  to  be  economists  and  at  the 
same  time  ethical  teachers  (49).  French  economists  Rossi, 
De  Laveley,  and  Le  Play,  introduced  ethical  principle  in  the 
science  of  wealth  as  well. 

There  are  several  such  examples  of  "ethical  interpreta- 
tion" of  economics  among  the  most  illustrious  thinkers.  They 
may  be  exculpated  for  their  disagreements  only  on  the 
ground  that  they  lived  in  times  when  social  science  was  in 
incumbent  stage,  when  scientific  ideas  were  intermingled 

{451  Cp.  The  CompleU  Works,  vol.  XIV,  p.  109.  [Wiener's  ed.  1905). 

[461  Id.  Ibid,  p.  288. 

[471  PolUical  Economy,  ch.  II,  p.  60.  [London,  19121. 

[481  Cf.  Histaire  deL'Economie  Politique  en  Europe,  par  J.  A.  Blanqui, 
ch.  III.  —  See  also  Des  Raports  de  UEconomie  Politique  el  de  la  Morale, 
par  M.  H.  Baudrillard,  lee.  II.  [Paris,  18831. 

[491  See  J.  N.  Keynes,  The  Scope  and  Method  oj  Political  Economy ^ 
ch.  II,  see.  1,  p.  62.  [London,  18971. 


10 

from  one  sphere  of  science  into  another  Good,  gentle 
Tolstoy,  may  also  be  pardoned  for  his  ''blunders  of  ex- 
pression" because  he  made  them  in  his  fanatic  love  of  truth, 
and  truth  although  it  is  truth,  does  not  always  seem 
true,  says  a  French  proverb.  To  treat  the  delicate  and  intri- 
cate complexity  of  money  and  wealth,  and  never  mislead, 
one  should  be  a  higher-man,  a  superman.  But  supermen  are 
not  yet  born  in  this  sordid  earth  as  fitly  objected  a  well- 
known  philosopher. 


B.  Interpretation  of  Property. 

I 

When  two  Greek  law-givers,  Lycurgus  and  Solon,  im- 
posed their  laws  upon  the  Greek  nation,  they  both  had  the 
same  purpose  —  to  establish  the  equal  right  of  all  men  to  the 
use  of  land  and  other  properties.  Plutarch,  speaking  of 
Lycurgus,  observes  that  at  that  time  ''some  were  so  poor 
that  they  had  no  inch  of  land,  and  others,  of  whom  there 
were  but  few,  so  wealthy  that  they  possessed  all".  Lycurgus 
persuaded  the  citizens  to  restore  the  land  to  common  use, 
and  they  did  so.  Solon  had  no  other  end  in  giving  laws  to  the 
Athenians  but  to  set  up  justice  among  all  his  fellow-citizens. 
He  says  that  ambition  of  the  rich  knows  no  bounds,  that 
they  respect  neither  sacred  property  nor  public  treasure, 
plundering  all  in  defiance  of  the  holy  laws  of  justice.  "I  had 
commanded  the  wealthiest  and  most  powerful  to  refrain 
from  harming  the  weak,  says  he  further,  I  had  protected 
great  and  humble  with  a  double  buckler,  equally  strong  both 
sides,  without  giving  more  to  one  than  to  the  other.  My  ad- 
vice has  been  disdained.  Today  they  are  punished  for  it"(l). 

[1]  See  these  quotations  on  Solon  and  Lycurgus  in  Property,  by  Ch. 
Letoumeau,  ch.  XIV,  sec.  V,  6. 

[2]  That  property  was  created  by  law  it  is  proved  by  Montesquieu 
and  Bentham.  In  ih&  Spirit  of  Laws,  Montesquieu  argues  that  civil  law  is 
Paladium  of  property,  and  as  the  people  acquired  by  political  laws  li- 
berty, so  they  acquired  by  the  civil  laws  property.  [The  Spirit  of  Laws, 
book  XXVI,  ch.  15].  —  In  The  Principles  of  Civil  Code,  by  J.  Bentham, 
we  find  the  same  idea  expressed  in  these  words :  "Property  is  entirely  the 
creature  of  law...  Property  and  law  are  born  and  must  die  together. 
Before  the  laws,  there  was  no  property;  take  away  the  laws,  all  pro- 
perty cesBes".  [The  Principles  of  the  CivU  Code,  pt.  I,  ch.  VIIIJ. 


11 

Taken  as  a  whole  this  doctrine  of  Lycurgus  and  Solon  is 
not  in  accordance  with  Tolstoy's  teaching  on  laws  and 
property.  But  nevertheless  it  shows  clearly  that  law  and 
property  are  two  indivisible  civil  institutions  which  can 
not  exist  separately  (2).  Tolstoy  is  in  opposition  to  both 
of  them,  law  and  property,  because  they  offend  against  hu- 
manity, especially  against  the  commandment  not  to  re- 
sist evil  by  force. 

Under  the  term  of  property  here  must  be  understood 
private  or  individual  property.  The  notion  of  property, 
however,  is  not  clear  either  in  ancient  or  modern  writers.  In 
the  course  of  human  evolution  property  has  many  times 
changed  its  form  and  its  substance,  its  meaning  and  its 
scope.  In  the  societies  that  preceded  ours,  property  em- 
bodied itself  in  a  form  of  oppression  which  has  been  defi- 
nitely abolished  once  for  all.  As  it  is  known  slavery  was 
one  of  the  forms  of  private  property  (3).  In  Greece  and 
Rome  there  were  public  slaves,  i.  e.  slaves  of  the  city,  and 
slaves  of  the  state;  but  most  of  the  slaves  were  simply  a 
part  of  the  patrimony  of  the  citizens.  Masters  had  the 
right  to  use  them  for  cultivation  of  land,  or  to  give  them 
away  as  presents,  or  to  sell  them,  or  to  leave  them  to  their 
heirs.  They  had  the  legal  right  of  imprisoning  and  fettering 
the  slaves,  or  separating  them  from  their  wives,  or  forbid- 
ding them  to  marry.  The  slaves  were  part  of  the  master's 
private  ownership,  and  he  disposed  of  them  as  he  pleased. 
In  the  Roman  laws  and  also  in  the  laws  of  Athens,  we  find 
that  a  father  could  sell  his  son.  This  was  because  the  father 
might  dispose  of  all  the  property  of  the  family,  and  the  son 
might  be  looked  upon  as  property,  since  his  labor  was  a 
source  of  income  (4).  The  best  Greek  and  Roman  philoso- 
phers saw  nothing  unlawful  in  that.  Their  conceptions 
of  the  respective  rights  and  duties  of  masters  and  slaves 
would  not  clash  in  the  least  with  the  ideas  even  now  in 
equatorial  Africa,  and  some  other  European  colonies  else- 
where. 

Between  these  old  institutions  of  slavery  and  modern 
capitalistic  systems,  Tolstoy  was  not  able  to  find  any 
great  differences.  To  him  the  institution  of  slavery  existed 
even  in  his  time  only  in  other  form  than  it  was  in  Greece, 

(31  Cf.  Ch.  Letoumeau,  Property,  ch.  XIV  and  XV.  See  also  Aristotle's 
PolUics,  bk.  I,  ch.  VIII. 

(4)  Cf.  F.  de  Coulange,  CU6  ArUique,  Engliah  by  W.  Small.  1901, 
book  II,  ch.  VIII,  p.  120. 


12 

India,  and  Rome,  And  the  reason  why  this  slavery  existed 
lies  in  the  institution  of  private  property.  If  it  be  true, 
Tolstoy  suggests,  that  property  has  its  origin  only  in  labor, 
why  so  many  combats,  revolutions,  and  wars?  Why  so 
many  luxuries,  robberies,  and  debaucheries?  Are  these 
vices  not  originated  in  personal  or  private  property? 
Is  it  true  that  property  and  money  represent  labor?  By 
no  means,  answers  our  philosopher.  Property  may  be  re- 
presented by  money,  and  vice  versa,  but  money  has  in  our 
time  completely  lost  that  desirable  significance  as  a  re- 
presentative of  labor;  such  a  significance  it  has  only  excepti- 
onally, for.as  a  general  rule  it  has  become  a  right  or  a  pos- 
sibility for  exploiting  the  labor  of  others.  Money  is  a  new 
form  of  slaVery,  which  differs  from  the  old  only  in  being  im- 
personal, and  in  freeing  people  from  the  human  relations 
of  the  slave  (5).  ** 

In  a  revolutionary  article.  To  the  Working  People y 
written  in  1902,  three  years  before  the  Russian  Revolution, 
Tolstoy  attempted  to  open  the  eyes  of  the  people  stating 
that  they  were  deprived  of  the  land  which  they  formerly 
possessed  and  were  forced  to  come  to  the  cities,  as  wage- 
workers,  or  practically,  as  slaves.  The  working  people  in 
manufacturing  cities  are  in  complete  slavish  dependence 
jon  their  masters.  These  slaves  may  be  liberated  from  the 
[chains  in  which  they  are  fettered  in  no  way,  except  by 
\  the  abolition  of  private  and  capitalistic  property,  that  is, 
\  giving  the  land  to  the  people  who  work,  and  not  to  the 
people  who  live  by  the  unearned  increment.  He  adds  that 
rural  laborers  have  nothing  to  do  with  socialistic  doctri- 
naires who  propose  the  diminution  of  hours  of  work  and 
raising  of  wages,  by  strikes,  unions,  and  childish  proces- 
sions with  flags  on  the  first  of  May.  They  need  not  send 
into  parliaments  the  representatives  who  fight  there 
"about  words,  with  words,  and  for  words'^  as  sometimes 
Lassalle  reproached  the  "bourgeois''  representatives.  The 
working  men  who  leave  the  land  and  live  by  factory  labor 
must  find  some  other  means  to  rid  themselves  of  the  sla- 
very. They  should  ask  and  demand  of  their  masters  and 
rulers  the  right  to  settle  on  the  land,  and  to  work  there.  In 
demanding  this,  they  will  not  be  demanding  something 
not  their  own,  not  belonging  to  them,  but  the  restitution 
of  their  most  unquestionable  and  inalienable  right,  which  is 

[51  What  Shall  We  Do  Thm,  cli.  XXI.  p.  163. 


13 

inherent  in  every  living  being,  to  live  on  the  land  and  get 
their  sustenance  from  it,  without  asking  permission  from 
anyone  else  to  do  so.  To  be  sure,  masters ^and  rulers  will  not 
give^the  people  the  land  which  they  demand.  Governments 
are  m  power  to  prevent  this  claim.  But  governments  have 
no  power  without  police  and  army,  and  who  are  the  con- 
stituents of  this  army  and  police?  People,  workingmen. 
When  these  laborers  refuse  to  serve  the  unchristian  and 
brutal  commands  of  the  governments,  then  people  can 
divide  and  take  as  much  land  as  they  need  for  culti- 
vation and  their  living. 

Should  it  not  be  robbery  to  take  the  possessions  of 
people  who  accumulated  thefn  for  hundreds  and  thousands 
years?  Yes,  but  how  did  these  upper  classes  accumulate 
their  property  and  riches?  Tolstoy  replies  on  this  question 
together  with  his  teacher  Proudhon:  They  heaped  up  their 
properties  by  theft  from  other  people.  La  proprUU  c^eat  le 
vol,  said  Proudhon  (6).  Sohstvenost  est  koren  2Za^(Property  is 
the  root  of  evil),  continues  his 'disciple,  by  the  same  axio- 
matic language  as  the  master  (7). 

Is  this  statement  categorical?  From  the  standpoint  of 
Proudhon  and  Tolstoy  it  is,  but  from  the  point  of  view 
of  economists  this  doctrine  is  at  fault.  The  Russian  ico- 
noclast, Tolstoy,  like  the  American  advocate  of  Single 
Tax,  George,  maintains  that  the  land  question  may  be 
solveds^imply  by  restoration  of  the  land  to  the  people  who 
work  on  it.  This  is,  undoubtedly,  the  best,  the  easiest,  and 
quickest  way  to  make  private  property  common  and 
equitable,  but  what  do  history  and  economics  say  of  this 
quaestio  vexata. 


II 

It  is  not  needful  here  to  go  with  historians  and  jurists  far 
beyond  the  Greek  and  Roman  lawyers  in  this  inquiry.  Let 
us  begin  the  discussion  with  Plato  and  Aristotle.  We  know 
already  that  Plato  in  his  Republic  is  a  communist.  He 
permits  no  citizen. to  have  any  property  of  his  own  beyond 
what  is  absolutely  necessary.  The  land  is  divided  into 
equal  parts  among  all  the    citizens,  in  order  that  all  may 

[6]  Cf.  Qu'est  ceque  la  PropriiU,  1840>  English  translation  by  B. 
Tucker,  1876,  First  Memoir,  ch.  I. 
(7)  What  ShaU  We  Do  Then,  ch.  39.   Wiener's  ed.  p.  318. 


14 

be  interested  in  the  defence  of  the  country  (8).  This  com- 
munism of  Plato  was  vigorously  combated  by  Aristotle  in 
a  brief  passage  of  The  Politics,  which  contains  many  of  the 
best  arguments  since  used  on  that  side  of  the  contro- 
versy (9).  However,  Aristotle  was  not  an  exclusive  indivi- 
dualist. He  wants  in  a  state,  Private  property  and  common 
use.  In  Plato's  judgment,  the  state  should  be  governed  in  the 
reverse  way,  Common  property  and  private  use.  In  Greek 
history  we  find  a  constant  srtuggle  about  these  questions 
of  inequality  among  people  and  private  dominion  of  land. 
But  the  ideas  of  communism  and  social  possessions  among 
ancient  nations  are  prevalent.  The  learned  historian,  Theo. 
Mommsen,  in  his  Roemische  Geschichte  stated  that  in  the 
earliest  times  the  arable  land  was  cultivated  in  common, 
and  it  was  not  till  later  that  land  came  to  be  distributed 
among  the  burgesses  as  their  own  property  (10).  Mommsen's 
thesis  is  based  on  the  quotations  of  Cicero ( 1 1),  Dionysius 
of  Halicarnassus,  and  Plutarch.  In  later  time  it  is  supported 
by  the  historian,  P.  Viollet  (12),  economist  E.  de  La- 
veley  (13),  sociologists  Ch.  Letourneau  (14),  Sir  Henry 
Main  (15),  and  almost  all  socialist  writers  (16). 

During  the  Middle  Ages  the  idea  of  common  ownership 
was  theoretically  maintained  by  church  Fathers  and  their 

[8]  Plato's  view  on  property  is  expressed  in  The  Republic,  bk.  Ill,  IV, 
V  and  VIII.  Then  in  The  Laws,  bk.  Ill,  where  he  speaks  of  distribution 
of  land  and  equalizing  of  property.  In  the  same  work,  he  further  on 
says  that  property  does  not  belong  to  the  individual  but  to  the  whole 
family,  and  property  and  family  alike  belong  to  the  State,  The  Laws,  h.X.l 

[9]  "I  do  not  think",  says  Aristotle,  "that  property  ought  to  be  com- 
mon". [The  Politics,  bk.  VII,  ch.  10].  On  the  other  place  he  argues  that 
there  are  two  things  which  principally  inspire  mankind  with  care  and 
affection,  namely,  the  sense  of  what  is  one's  own,  and  exclusive  pos- 
session. [The  Politics,  bk.  II,  ch.  IV] 

[10]  In  aeltester  Zeit  das  Ackerland  gemeinschaftlich,  wahrsch- 
einHch  nach  den  einzelnen  Geschlechtsgenossenschaften  bestellt  und 
erst  der  Ertrag  unter  die  einzelnen  dem  Geschlecht  angehoerigen 
Haeuser  vertheSt  ward...  erst  spaeter  das  Land  unter  die  Buerger  zu 
Sondereigenthum  aufgetheilt  ward.  [  Roemische  Geschichte,  2te  A- 
uflage,  1856,  bd.  I,  st.  171-72.] 

[11]  Tum  [zur  Zeit  des  Romulus]  erat  res  in  pecore  et  locorum  pos- 
sessionibus,  ex  quo  pecuniosi  et  locupletos  vocabantur. —  [Numa]  pri- 
mum  agros,  quos  bello  Romulus  ceperat,  divisit  viritim  civibus.  [Cited 
by  Mommsen  from  De  Republca,  2,  9,  14.] 

[12]  Du  Caractere  Collectif  des  Premieres  Proprietis  Immohilieres,  1872. 


[13 
[14 
[15 
[16 


De  la  ProprieteetdesesFormese  Primitives,  1874.  [EngUsh  tr.  1878] 
UEvolution  de  la  Propriete,  1888.  [English  translation,  1892]. 
Ancient  Law,  ch.  VIII.   London,  1861. 
Especially  P.  Lafargue,  The  Evolution  of  Property,  1908. 


15 

followers,  on  the  basis  of  Christ's  teaching  which  perpetu- 
ally sympathized  with  the  poor.  St.  Fathers  regarded  com- 
munity of  goods  as  the  ideal  order  of  society,  private  pro- 
perty as  a  necessary  evil,  trade  as  an  occupation  hardly 
compatible  with  the  character  of  a  devout  Christian,  and  the 
receipt  of  interest  for  the  use  of  money  as  altogether  sinful. 
They  said  that  individual  property  is  contrary  to  the  Divine 
Law.  therefore  Omnia  debent  esse  communia.  These  princi- 
ples could  never  be  applied  with  logical  severity.  Eccle- 
siastics theoretically  preached  equality  of  men,  and  in 
practice  they  were  the  wealthiest  class  among  other  classes. 
Roderigo  Borgia,  later  Pope  Alexander  VI,  was  one  of  the 
richest  men  of  his  time  (17).  The  luxury,  immorality  and 
privileged  wealth  of  clergy  caused  the  Reformation,  but 
the  Reformation  could  not  restrain  the  clergy  from  acquiring 
immense  private  possessions.  Communism  of  the  Middle 
Ages  was  then  a  pure  utopia,  as  it  is  today. 

In  the  philosophy  of  the  17th,  18th,  and  19th  centuries 
the  institution  of  private  property  was  justified  by  many 
jurisconsults,  reformers,  and  philosophers  who,  based  their 
teachings  on  human  nature.  Among  these  are  significant  the- 
ories of  Grotius,  Locke,  Hobbes,  Thiers  (18),  and  Coulan- 
ges  (19).  In  opposition  to  these  writers  we  find,  throughout 
the  French  Revolution  and  later  on,  the  writers  who  as- 
sailed private  property  as  pernicious.  Rousseau  expressed 
himself  with  all  his  fervid  eloquence  upon  this  theme,  and 
he  found  a  large  public  to  sympathize  with  his  de- 
clamations. Rousseau  was  the  inspirer  of  those  revolutio- 
nary writers,  inferior  in  genius  but  equally  daring,  who 
helped  to  diffuse  his  doctrines.  Mirabeau  and  Robespierre 
were  also  Rousseau's  adherents.  Even  the  socialists, 
though  they  have  dropped  some  of  his  first  principles  and 
have  adopted  some  of  the  conclusions  of  modern  science, 
have  inherited  no  small  portion  of  his  spirit  (20). 

{17]  On  this  Pope,  Professor  P.  Villari  says:  "One  of  his  strongest 
passions  was  an  insatiable  greed  for  cold...  he  accumulated  the  immense 
fortune  that  served  to  raise  him  to  the  papacy"...  See  Storia  diGirolamo 
Savonarola,  e  de*  suvi  tempi,  1869.  English  by  Ll.  Villari,  1909,  ch.  IX,  152. 

[18]  The  Rights  of  Property,  by  A.  Thiers,  London.  1848. 

[19]  The  Origin  of  Property  in  Land,  by  F.  de  Coulanges.  English 
translation,  London,  1891. 

[20[  On  the  private  property  during  the  French  Revolution  see  Le 
Socialisme  et  la  Revolution Francaise,  par  Dr.  A.  Lichtenberg,  Paris,  1899, 
ch.  VII,  1.  Another  valuable  book  on  this  subject  is  TheFrench  Revolution 
and  Modem  French  Socialism,  by  Dr.  J.  B.  Peixotto,  New  York,  1901, 
ch.  I,  4;  ch.  Ill,  3;  and  ch.  VI,  2. 


16 

In  America  we  find  many  of  Rousseau's  followers  who 
were  inspired  by  philosophers  of  the  French  Revolution. 
Among  these  followers  is  Henry  George  (21),  and  in  Russia, 
Tolstoy.  The  difference  between  these  two  reformers  is  that 
George  would  put  the  rent  of  real  property  in  the  hand 
of  government  for  better  and  more  righteous  taxation  than 
is  now  the  case.  Tolstoy,  meanwhile,  is  against  all  taxation, 
because  it  can  only  be  collected  by  force,  and  all  force  is  for- 
bidden by  Christ.  George  is  for  nationalization  of  land, 
Tolstoy  for  full  communalization,  against  all  government 
and  all  state  ownership  (22). 

Tolstoy  is,  indubitably,  influenced  by  Rousseau,  Proud- 
hon,  and  anarcho-communistic  writers  of  the  nineteenth 
century.  His  teaching  of  property  has  many  elements  of  chi- 
merical schemes,  sometimes  confounded  with  mediaeval 
communism  and  Christian  primitive  Utopias,  sometimes 
with  anarchistic  principles  which  reject  both  private  and 
social  property.  The  labor  question  is  solved  by  Tolstoy 
simply  in  the  destruction  of  private  ownership  and  in  the 
distribution  of  land  to  the  people  who  work  manually. 
Mental  labor  and  intellectual  production  are  ignored  and 
disdained.  In  many  books  printed  during  Tolstoy's  life 
we  find  "no  rights  reserved".  Literary  property,  accor- 
dingly, is  the  common  property  of  mankind.  Ideas  and  facts 
are  free  to  all  men.  There  are  no  patents  and  copyrights 
of  mental  exertions  cum  privilegio.  The  author  of  a  work  has 
no  right  of  property  in  the  book  he  has  made;  he  took  the 
common  stock  and  worked  it  over,  and  one  man  has  just  as 
good  a  right  to  it  as  another.  If  the  author  is  allowed  to 
be  the  owner  of  his  works,  the  public  are  deprived  of  their 
rights.  The  immaterial  property  in  writing  is  in  the  same 
degree  a  robbery  as  it  is  material. 

Finally,  literary  labor  does  not  belong  to  this  question. 
According  to  Tolstoy's  interpretation,  inventions,  arts,  lite- 
rature, and  science,  are  privileged  only  to  the  higher  classes. 
The  clasB  of  people  exclusively  occupied  with  physical  labor 

[21[  See  Progress  and  PropeHy,  by  H.  George,  1879,  bk.  VII-VIII. 
Tolstoy  mentioned  George  in  several  of  his  political  articles,  and  wrote 
Two  Letters  on  Henry  George,  1893.  In  Wiener's  translations  of  the  Com- 
plete Works  of  Count  Tolstoy,  these  Two  Letters  are  published  in 
volume  XXIII,  pp.  396-401. 

[22]  A  parallel  drawn  between  George's  and  Tolstoy's  theory  of  pro- 
perty may  be  found  in  C.  B.  Fillebrown,  T/ie  ABC  of  Taxation,  App.  B. 
pp.  168-170.  [New  York,  1909]. 


17 

nowhere  read  books,  neither  have  the  masses  learned  from 
books  to  plough,  to  make  kvas,  to  weave,  to  make  shoes,  to 
build  huts,  to  sing  songs,  or  even  to  pray. 

Of  this  Tolstoy's  criticism  of  literature,  science,  and 
private  property,  were  cogent  objections.  He  was  called  an 
Utopian,  a  sophist,  an  inconsistent  author  who  speaks  one 
thing  and  works  something  else.  Some  called  him  charlatan, 
destroyer  of  sacred  institutions,  and  a  man  who  did  not 
know  what  he  was  preaching.  These  epithets  remind  one 
of  that  which  Jean  Bodin  gave  to  Machiavelli  calling  him 
a  "butt  of  invective",  and  "wretched  man",  or  of  those 
names  which  Voltaire  gave  Rousseau  honoring  him  as 
a  "Punchinello  of  letters",  "the  fanfaron  of  ink",  "arch- 
madman",  "scoundrel",  "mountebank",  and  other  choice 
epithets. 

Such  criticism  might  be  valuable  and  apropos  to  a  certain 
sort  of  newspapers,  but  not  to  serious  investigators  and 
critics.  Throwing  this  kind  of  adjectives  at  an  author,  does 
not  mean  that  he  is  really  wrong.  Indeed,  Tolstoy's  doctrine 
of  abolishing  individual  ownership  constitutes  no  valid 
grounds  for  criticism  of  the  historic  right  of  private  pro- 
perty in  land.  Most  of  his  great  expectations  would  not  be 
realized.  The  problems  of  wealth  distribution,  land,  and 
money,  are  much  deeper  and  more  complex  than  he  presu- 
med. They  cannot  be  explained  solely  by  a  theory,  nor 
solved  by  refusing  to  serve  in  military  and  state  obligations. 
They  are  the  inheritance  of  the  present  generation  from 
a  long  past,  the  resultant  of  a  complex  of  forces,  material  and 
spiritual,  political,  economic,  moral,  and  social.  They  can 
only  be  unraveled  by  a  most  minute  and  careful  study 
of  historical  records,  interpreted  by  the  aid  of  the  best  re- 
sults of  the  thought  of  economists,  sociologists,  and  politi- 
cians. And  yet,  in  many  ways,  Tolstoy  aided  the  solution 
of  these  problems.  He  helped  to  accelerate  it  by  the  example 
he  set  of  earnestness,  altruism,  and  intense  devotion  to  ide- 
als which  he  made  the  creed  of  future  society. 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  ot  any 
University  of  California  Library 
or  to  the 
NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
BIdg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

•  2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 
(510)642-6753 

•  1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing 
books  to  NRLF 

•  Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4 
days  prior  to  due  date. 


DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


JAN  27 1997 


12.000(11/95) 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


I 


CD^773Ehflfi 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CAUFORNIA  UBRARY 


l 


